Bach Cello Suites

[Mandryka]

That seems to me to be a clear process of dumbing-down.     The music of the Cello Suites works so well because these harmonic cues are implied, not overtly stated.
Disclaimer - I haven't heard the H S recordings.  Yet.  (I have had some recordings by Nigel North for a very long time - but they don't sound very interesting to me.)

I think that in a thing like these Hopkinson Smith performances of the first three suites, there are things lost and things gained. Every new performance is a reworking, a new glimpse from a new point of view. Every interpretation gives the works a renewed understanding and perspective. There are no absolute truths in music, rather every performance has its own immediate truth. As I said, what I value in the Hopkinson Smith is the restraint and the feeling of innocence. I find it alluring. For that reason, I'm very glad these recordings exist.

[Madiel]

There are no absolute truths in music, rather every performance has its own immediate truth.

Here's an absolute truth: Bach didn't write for the saxophone.

[Mandryka]

Here's an absolute truth: Bach didn't write for the saxophone.

Yes but that's at best a truth about Bach, not a truth about music.

[prémont]

Yes but that's at best a truth about Bach, not a truth about music.

It's courageous to separate Bach from his music. 

[Spotted Horses]

Here's an absolute truth: Bach didn't write for the saxophone.

I'd better keep it to myself that I listened to this

[San Antone]

Here's an absolute truth: Bach didn't write for the saxophone.

Once these works entered the public domain, they are available to musicians to play them as they see fit.  What Bach thought, or intended (speculative), or which instruments were available to him, constitutes the floor, not the ceiling, of interpretation and performance.  However, when talented musicians transcribe the works for their instrument it opens up the music to a universe of other timbres and performance opportunities.

I completely understand and support someone's preference for cello performances; but it is hardly something worth debating since there is a long tradition of playing these works on other instruments.  The genius of Bach's composing is that the music can be successfully imagined for almost any instrument and a vociferous objection would appear to be misspent energy.

[Spotted Horses]

Once these works entered the public domain, they are available to musicians to play them as they see fit.  What Bach thought, or intended (speculative), or which instruments were available to him, constitutes the floor, not the ceiling, of interpretation and performance.  However, when talented musicians transcribe the works for their instrument it opens up the music to a universe of other timbres and performance opportunities.

I completely understand and support someone's preference for cello performances; but it is hardly something worth debating since there is a long tradition of playing these works on other instruments.  The genius of Bach's composing is that the music can be successfully imagined for almost any instrument and a vociferous objection would appear to be misspent energy.

Agree entirely. My personal rule is that will not listen to a transcription of a work that I have not already encountered in the original version. Any transcription (even playing the Goldberg variations on a piano) is at some level an original composition, and I want to be aware of where liberties are taken. One guilty pleasure is transcriptions of Bach Organ preludes and fugues on piano (Busoni and others). Those normally have a lot of extra notes added to evoke the registrations and rich overtones of a church organ.

The cello suites are a special case, in my view, since the wonderful thing about them is how they transcend the limitations of the instrument, through implied harmony and counterpoint. Filling in the implied bits just lets the air out of them. I listened to some samples from the Rubsam transcription for Lute Harpsichord, and it is the only thing by him that did absolutely nothing for me.

[aukhawk]

Precisely.  It is the notes that are missing that make the music so interesting (at a subconscious level - ie stimulating to the brain) - use a polyphonic instrument to fill in those notes kinda misses the point, turns it into unstimulating or elevator music.   

[amw]

Precisely.  It is the notes that are missing that make the music so interesting (at a subconscious level - ie stimulating to the brain) - use a polyphonic instrument to fill in those notes kinda misses the point, turns it into unstimulating or elevator music.   

That's kind of my view as well with the Cello Suites. That said, I do have two transcriptions that I think work very well, and listen to often: Pandolfo on viola da gamba and Podger on violin. Both, obviously, non-polyphonic instruments as well. And Bach himself did arrange the C minor suite for lute, as BWV 995 I believe, so lutenists have some ground for arranging the remaining five, the problem is simply that they can't do so as well as Bach did.

(The violin sonatas & partitas are a different story, since they are a genuine compendium, an attempt to encapsulate all the music of Bach's time using the most popular instrument of his day. As a result, one can add material to them without it feeling like meaning is lost. Perhaps he felt he couldn't just explore the instrument in itself as he did with the cello suites.)

[Madiel]

Once these works entered the public domain, they are available to musicians to play them as they see fit.  What Bach thought, or intended (speculative), or which instruments were available to him, constitutes the floor, not the ceiling, of interpretation and performance.  However, when talented musicians transcribe the works for their instrument it opens up the music to a universe of other timbres and performance opportunities.

I completely understand and support someone's preference for cello performances; but it is hardly something worth debating since there is a long tradition of playing these works on other instruments.  The genius of Bach's composing is that the music can be successfully imagined for almost any instrument and a vociferous objection would appear to be misspent energy.

Given that I write laws for a living, I find it absolutely fascinating that your first port of call is to invoke that it's legal, before any mention of whether it has artistic merit or whether it respects what are sometimes known as the moral rights of the composer.

It never occurred to me to bring LAWS into it, and I've never once suggested anyone was doing anything illegal. All of my suggestions are that someone is doing something that is either unnecessary or disrespectful. The main feeling that strikes me on most occasions is that it's about the performer rather than the music. The change of instrument isn't done to benefit the music, despite all of the justifications after the fact. It's done to give the performer something to play, and more significantly something to sell.

[prémont]

The main feeling that strikes me on most occasions is that it's about the performer rather than the music. The change of instrument isn't done to benefit the music, despite all of the justifications after the fact. It's done to give the performer something to play, and more significantly something to sell.

This is precisely my opinion too as I wrote above with other words. I also agree with AMW that executions with other bowed string instruments (viola da gamba, violin, viola and maybe double bass) are acceptable because they don't change the essential structure of the music that much, but in the end I prefer the violoncello. In principle transcriptions for wind instruments which essentially are non-polyphonic too should be acceptable, but unfortunately they rarely are worth the listening effort and the word execution seems to me to take on a different meaning here. I also agree that modern arrangements for keyboard and lute suffer from not being up to the level of the composer, and the added notes are often so self-evident as to be superfluous. One of the worst examples are arrangements of the Sarabande from the fifth suite, where the monodic line is virtually disturbed by added harmonic notes. If one looks at the composers transcription for lute it's as well as monodic all the way.

[San Antone]

Given that I write laws for a living, I find it absolutely fascinating that your first port of call is to invoke that it's legal, before any mention of whether it has artistic merit or whether it respects what are sometimes known as the moral rights of the composer.

It never occurred to me to bring LAWS into it, and I've never once suggested anyone was doing anything illegal. All of my suggestions are that someone is doing something that is either unnecessary or disrespectful. The main feeling that strikes me on most occasions is that it's about the performer rather than the music and to offer his vision of it and his artistry to the audience. The change of instrument isn't done to benefit the music, despite all of the justifications after the fact. It's done to give the performer something to play, and more significantly something to sell.

I did not refer to "laws" or legality in my post that you quoted.  My post was about the independent life a work has once it leaves the composer's desk and is available to performers. 

But I disagree with this statement: "The change of instrument isn't done to benefit the music."  Every time an artist performs a piece of music his goal is to benefit the music, and offer his vision and artistry to the audience.  Many transcriptions are very successful interpretations of the music and offer the music with different colors and timbres, all which can benefit the music.

[Madiel]

I did not refer to "laws" or legality in my post that you quoted.  My post was about the independent life a work has once it leaves the composer's desk and is available to performers.

The very first thing you mentioned was work being in the public domain. Copyright is a legal issue. If you just meant that work was public, that's different, but the phrase "the public domain" has a particular meaning and it isn't a synonym for "published and accessible".

If you just mean that performers can start ignoring the composer's instructions straight away, while the composer's still alive, that's a different conversation. One where I might invoke Ravel's retort that performers are slaves when someone complained about how exacting he was about people following what he'd actually written. Living composers can be bitchy like that.

[aukhawk]

... That said, I do have two transcriptions that I think work very well, and listen to often: Pandolfo on viola da gamba and Podger on violin. Both, obviously, non-polyphonic instruments as well. ...

The Pandolfo recording is right up there as one of my very favourite versions of the Cello Suites.  Quite magical.  I also enjoy Edgar Meyer on double bass (3 suites only) but not some other double bass efforts I've sampled - perhaps it's just Meyer's tone is very special.  Podger I'm afraid seemed a bit pointless to me, and not a great advertisement for her artistry.  I just listened to part of 'her' Art of Fugue the other day ('her' ie Brecon Baroque) and found it hugely enjoyable.

[San Antone]

The very first thing you mentioned was work being in the public domain. Copyright is a legal issue. If you just meant that work was public, that's different, but the phrase "the public domain" has a particular meaning and it isn't a synonym for "published and accessible".

If you just mean that performers can start ignoring the composer's instructions straight away, while the composer's still alive, that's a different conversation. One where I might invoke Ravel's retort that performers are slaves when someone complained about how exacting he was about people following what he'd actually written. Living composers can be bitchy like that.

As a lawyer familiar with copyright laws you should know that there is no protection against performing a work on any instrument, not to mention that during Bach's lifetime there was no such concept as intellectual property and his music never benefitted from copyright protection. So there is no rational basis for your response to my post. 

You also appear to be engaging in the time worn debate on who is more important, the composer or the interpreter.  A question of no interest to me: they are both necessary to the act of realizing a work's performance.

[Spotted Horses]

The very first thing you mentioned was work being in the public domain. Copyright is a legal issue. If you just meant that work was public, that's different, but the phrase "the public domain" has a particular meaning and it isn't a synonym for "published and accessible".

If you just mean that performers can start ignoring the composer's instructions straight away, while the composer's still alive, that's a different conversation. One where I might invoke Ravel's retort that performers are slaves when someone complained about how exacting he was about people following what he'd actually written. Living composers can be bitchy like that.

San Antone mention of public domain was not legalistic, in my view, but practical. If a work is not in public domain you can't freely perform it without potential unpleasant consequences.

And, of course, interpreters can ignore the composers instructions straight away. And of course interpreters ignore composers instructions at their own peril, since the composers presumably had unique insight into their own works, and ignoring composer instructions that can result in a performance that doesn't please the audience. But I certainly experience different skillful performers producing widely differing performances that are equally compelling, insightful and enjoyable.

Maybe the subject can return to the cello suites?

[Spotted Horses]

Precisely.  It is the notes that are missing that make the music so interesting (at a subconscious level - ie stimulating to the brain) - use a polyphonic instrument to fill in those notes kinda misses the point, turns it into unstimulating or elevator music.   

It doesn't really apply to the cello suites, but just once I'd like to hear the unaccompanied violin partitas and sonatas played on a piano, without any filling in of missing notes. Just to hear what is written, without excruciating triple stops, etc, would be illuminating.

[aukhawk]

The 1st note of the 1st Sonata ...

[Madiel]

As a lawyer familiar with copyright laws you should know that there is no protection against performing a work on any instrument, not to mention that during Bach's lifetime there was no such concept as intellectual property and his music never benefitted from copyright protection. So there is no rational basis for your response to my post. 

You also appear to be engaging in the time worn debate on who is more important, the composer or the interpreter.  A question of no interest to me: they are both necessary to the act of realizing a work's performance.

Sigh. I really can't be bothered anymore beyond pointing out that I agree both are necessary to realizing a work. And that's the whole point. We have a performer having to write all this stuff about why they are NOT doing their part of the task in the way they were asked, and why we should all be okay with that in the name of artistic freedom.

If performers like this wrote that their performance was "inspired by" a score it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't. They claim to be performing it. They want people to buy their recording on that basis. And on that basis, the performance has to be marked down for the same reason that playing the wrong notes or the wrong dynamics or the wrong phrasing or singing the wrong words ought to be marked down when those things are in the score. They are not interpretative choices. They are errors.

[San Antone]

Sigh. I really can't be bothered anymore beyond pointing out that I agree both are necessary to realizing a work. And that's the whole point. We have a performer having to write all this stuff about why they are NOT doing their part of the task in the way they were asked, and why we should all be okay with that in the name of artistic freedom.

If performers like this wrote that their performance was "inspired by" a score it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't. They claim to be performing it. They want people to buy their recording on that basis. And on that basis, the performance has to be marked down for the same reason that playing the wrong notes or the wrong dynamics or the wrong phrasing or singing the wrong words ought to be marked down when those things are in the score. They are not interpretative choices. They are errors.

We have a completely different view of these transcriptions.  Yours seems to be philosophical while mine is practical: a good performance is not defined by the instrument or restricted to the original conception of the composer, but by the musicality of the performer. 

While I listen to these suites performed on the cello the vast majority of the time, I have heard some transcriptions that I prefer to some performed on a modern cello (an instrument also not known to Bach).